Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPortnow, Leah H
dc.contributor.authorChoridah, Lina
dc.contributor.authorKardinah, Kardinah
dc.contributor.authorHandarini, Triwulan
dc.contributor.authorPijnappel, Ruud
dc.contributor.authorBluekens, Adriana M J
dc.contributor.authorDuijm, Lucien E M
dc.contributor.authorSchoub, Peter K
dc.contributor.authorSmilg, Pamela S
dc.contributor.authorMalek, Liat
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Jessica W T
dc.contributor.authorRaza, Sughra
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-25T18:54:03Z
dc.date.available2023-05-25T18:54:03Z
dc.date.issued2023-04-29
dc.identifier.citationPortnow LH, Choridah L, Kardinah K, Handarini T, Pijnappel R, Bluekens AMJ, Duijm LEM, Schoub PK, Smilg PS, Malek L, Leung JWT, Raza S. International Inter-observer Variability of Breast Density Assessment. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023 Apr 29:S1546-1440(23)00326-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.03.010. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37127220.en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1558-349X
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jacr.2023.03.010en_US
dc.identifier.pmid37127220
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/52122
dc.description.abstractObjective: To determine variability in visually assessed mammographic breast density categorization among radiologists practicing in Indonesia, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States. Methods: Two-hundred consecutive 2D full field digital screening mammograms performed from September-December 2017 were selected and retrospectively reviewed from four global locations for a total of 800 mammograms. Three breast radiologists in each location (team) provided consensus density assessments of all 800 mammograms using BI-RADS® density categorization. Inter-reader agreement was compared using Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting across all four density categories and Gwet's AC1 for binary comparison of combined not dense versus dense categories. Variability of distribution between teams was calculated using the Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity across all four categories and using McNemar's test for not dense versus dense categories. To compare readers from a particular country on their own 200 mammograms versus the other three teams, density distribution was calculated using conditional logistic regression. Results: For all 800 mammograms, inter-reader weighted agreement for distribution among four density categories is 0.86 (Gwet's AC2 with quadratic weighting 95%, CI 0.85-0.88) and for not dense vs dense categories it is 0.66 (Gwet's AC1 95%, CI 0.63-0.70). Density distribution across four density categories was significantly different when teams were compared to each other and one team versus the other three teams combined (p<0.001). Overall, all readers placed the largest number of mammograms in the scattered and heterogeneous categories. Conclusion: While reader teams from four different global locations had almost perfect inter-reader agreement in BI-RADS® density categorization, variability in density distribution across four categories remains statistically significant.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of the American College of Radiologyen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2023.03.010en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.en_US
dc.subjectBreast densityen_US
dc.subjectglobal radiologyen_US
dc.subjectmammographyen_US
dc.titleInternational Inter-observer Variability of Breast Density Assessmenten_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
dc.source.countryUnited States
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
dc.contributor.departmentRadiologyen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record